i'm hoping to get started the education piece within the next month or so. in district seven we wanted to do some pilot program. we are asking students in our public schools to participate as crossing guards. right now there is two schools that have shown a strong interest and we are hoping to take it off. why i was interested in doing that is really the education piece where you start educating children at a young age about what their responsibilities are, not only as a pedestrian but when they get older as a driver. so that's my attempt. and what we are finding out and maybe everybody might know this, but for people that don't know this, speed is responsible for 10 times the number of pedestrian injuries in san francisco, more than driving

under the influence. a lot of people think it's about driving, but it's speed. 60 percent of the injuries occur in intersection. our public needs to be aware of this. too often people are not yielding to oncoming pedestrians. we need a shift that will require everyone to pay attention to the streets. san francisco is ranked as having the highest total rates of fatalities and major injuries to pedestrians and bicyclist by both vehicle miles and by population. i know we can do better. we are a city that knows how to do things so let's get it done. this will call on the transportation authority to

convene a working group of pedestrian safety advocates and lead the major county departments. including the departments of public health, sf mta and san francisco police department to develop and action plan. within 90 days of this first meeting, an action plan of the public awareness campaign will be presented to the board. we have an unprecedented level of support coming from community members, the mayor's office and the board and our city departments. i am looking forward to making pedestrian accidents a thing of the past. after all, a few days ago in the paper, if you see see that san francisco is ranked is the no. 1 city where you want to have a baby, right? unfortunately we keep losing children and families. one of the problems in san francisco is the safety issue. we want it

to not be only ranked no. one, but we want to keep the babies in the city. the rest i submit. >> the clerk: thank you supervisor yee. supervisor avalos? supervisor john avalos: thank you. i have a memoriam. michael faye he passed away. he had 13 children. he survived by his beloved wife of 46 years maryland. he was a resident of he graduated from sacred heart high school and a dedicated

public servant. he was a local teamster for 85 years. mike -- raising his family in epiphany parish and served as president of the saint vincent society. he wouldn't trust anybody with his hair except the barber. he worked on geneva and mission and enjoyed many meals and the entire social club. he enjoyed a cup of coffee and conversation with the locals. he was a great member of our neighborhood and opened his door to all and dubbed the

guardian angel of the hood. the rest i will submit. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor breed? breed breed thank you, i have one in memoriam for ruby johnson. she was born in san francisco in 1951. she graduated from supervisor yee and my alma mater galleon high school. she worked for the police department and the traffic division until her retirement. after retiring she was the captain of the hunters point drummers and in the western edition. she also served on the committee and organized the parade for 20 years. she leaves behind two daughters and seven grandchildren, many many friends and loved ones and she

will be dearly missed. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor breed. supervisor campos. supervisor david campos: thank you very much, madam clerk. i have a couple of items. the first item is a hearing request. i want to have a hearing at the government audit regarding the contracting process that was followed by the san francisco mta for the new hybrid buses which was approved by this board of supervisors on 2013. the very subject of this hearing is to get additional information on the contracting process that was followed and at the outset let me say one of the concerns i have is whether or not it is the best practice, a good idea to allow a vendor to deliver something that we are purchasing but we are spending millions of dollars to purchase that item before the board of supervisors actually approves

the purchase. i think as a matter of practice, as a matter of policy is not a good practice to allow for the delivery of an item that we want to purchase before the board of supervisors approves that item. i'm looking forward to that item in the oversight committee. the next item is something that i know that many of us have been contacted about and i think that all of us have been upset to see what's going on in the city right now. i am introducing a resolution and before i go into specifics i want to thank my cosponsors of the resolution, supervisor yee, farrell, wiener, chiu, mar and cohen. i'm introducing a resolution that makes it clear that here in the city and county of san francisco we do not support the kind of false antiabortion message that are contained in banners that are

currently lining up market street. the banners and i'm sure that many of you have seen them, abortion hurts women. that whatever your views are on the subject, that is misguided incorrect information. to the contrary, not only is abortion one of the safest medical procedures in the united states, but denied abortion care is what actually hurts women. when women are denied the right to make the very personal deeply personal and private medical decision about whether or not to have a child, their emotional economic educational and professional satisfaction and success are threatened and limited when that choice is taken away from

them. this is a resolution that understand the importance of making it clear that here in san francisco, we do trust women, we do respect women. i am proud to live in a city that respects the right of women to choose and we are proud that our city policies are consistent with protecting that right. we support women's reproductive health rights which include ready access to affordable and legal family planning services including abortion care. it is a fight that has been brought to people from outside san francisco. and my resolution specifically does three things. first, it puts the san francisco board of supervisors on record as opposing the views on the

banner and the message that will be portrayed at the antiabortion rally that is scheduled for this weekend. we have seen these rallies before and i think it's important for us as the elected body that sets policy for this city to be on the record underscoring our brief that we have to respect the right of women to choose for themselves what to do with their bodies. the second thing this resolution does is that it urges the city to the extent that there is a legal requirement that these banners be maintained. that any money that the city makes, any proceeds that come from these banners being up on market street, that those proceeds that that money be given by the city agency in this case to the department of public health so the money can be used to education vulnerable populations about accurate and scientifically verifiable

information regarding reproductive health and reproductive rights. one thing that is very disturbing to me is how these anti-choice activist always target low income women and we are seeing that in my district with planned parenthood. it's not, they seldom go to the wealthier parts of town. they go where they believe that they are able to intimidate people, women the most. the final thing that this resolution does is that it actually calls upon this city that we as city government actually engage in a review of our permitting process. we respect the 1st amendment right of people to speak for themselves what they think about this issue, but there is a process in place and there are rules that actually govern what banners can go up on a city street like market and i know that many concerns have been raised about whether or not these banners have actually

followed the rules and procedures that are in place. and to the extent that those rules and procedures have not be followed, we believe that the banners should be taken down if that is the case. so, i want to thank my colleagues for their cosponsorship of this resolution and the last thing that i want to do is introduce a hearing request in addition to this resolution so that we can have a more in depth discussion about the process and procedures that are followed by the department of public works regarding the permitting to hang these types of banners or city managed land post. the rest i submit. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor campos. president chiu. president david chiu: thank you. i have a couple items for today. i'm introducing legislation for adjusting the temporary relocation payment

for tenants using the consumer price index. currently there is a flat cap the tenants can receive for relocation in less that a month for constructions that are happening within buildings. this legislation would require the rent board to adjust and increase the cap annually using the cpi which is the cost inflation formulas which we are able to do understate law. also i'm introducing a legislation for comprehensive immigration reform. i want to thank supervisors campos and wiener for their cosponsorship. we have in the past presented immigration reform. last year reform was supposed to be passed. at this point congress has not acted while too many families are being broken up and children taken way from

their families. we heard stories of hotel workers and restaurant workers and laborers and janitors that were tragic. in fact within our local janitors community there have been literally hundred dollars -- hundred s of families deported. the legislation i introduce was calling for three things for president obama to stop the deportation of families. there has been 2 million deportation under the obama administration. secondly, to ask for the extension of childhood arrivals program and lastly it calls for the end of the firings and termination of undocumented workers by ending

employers sanctions. the last thing i want to say is thank our colleagues who have worked on vision zero and add myself as that cosponsor. wiener and i attended another memorial service in my district in chinatown and every single incident is too many. we are hoping we are able to achieve that in short order. >> the clerk: thank you mr. president, supervisor cohen. supervisor malia cohen: thank you. today i'm introducing a request with the sponsorship of supervisor breed and chiu on the fire department. last year my goal i asked for this audit after hearing concerns about applicants and current members of the fire department about the recruitment policy, testing

and promotion practices within the department. this audit also looked at the policy of mandatory over time. now, there are a number of recommendations that the audit has warranted and in these recommendations are to be taken very seriously and ensure that people hired are transparent and fair. additionally we need to have a more focused allocation about the resources between the fire department and ems personnel and the policy of mandatory over time before we proceed with the budget conversations. the rest i submit, thank you. >> thank you #9 the clerk: thank you. mr. president, that conincludes introduction president david chiu: thank you. i would like to go to

items 10-13. the clerk: items 10-13. certifying a final impact report for the proposed masonic center renovation project at 1111 california street. item 12 is the motion reversing the commission certification and item 13 is directing the clerk for finding. chiu thank you, colleagues in front of you today we have the appeal for the masonic renovation project at 1111 california street. for this hearing we'll consider the adequacy and sufficient completeness of the final eir which all of you have copies.

we'll hear from the appellants who have 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their appeal and we'll hear from the appellants and each speaker will have 2 minutes to present and then the presentation for grounds for certification and from planning left -- will have up to 10 minutes and on behalf of the real party and interest and finally the appellant will have up to three 3 minutes for a rebuttal. if there is anymore questions, i don't have any opening remarks, i certainly have perspectives on this project but certainly look forward hearing from the appellant and others with regards to this appeal. why don't we hear now from mr.

wallace. >> thank you mr. president, my name is james wallace. i'm here representing my client and the san francisco neighborhood and nob hill neighbors. as you know i don't usually appear before the board. i know you will give myself and my colleague vet elf many years. this project has for many years and many of you have voted on twice before, some of you will be the first time. it's had union support, neighbor support and opposition from the neighborhood. but one thing i think is important here is that regardless of the support that the unions may have given or the settlement

agreement may have, the city has to comply and the project still has to comply with all of the rules that are set before it. i got involved in this case because barrett a long time friend of mine regarding the liquor license. which i found was pretty lax code enforcement that shouldn't be going on. what i found was "avatar" foods, the third party vendor is seeking a liquor license on the basis of the 2012 conditional use approval that some of you voted on. as you know the 2012 conditional use approval simply states that their non-conforming use can continue in existing format

without any expansion or enlargement. clearly in my opinion and letters of determination that have been published by the planning department for years, the application for a liquor license requires it's own conditional use. i thought the conditional use or abc application was improperly moving forward. shortly thereafter, the eir was published. what i found in the eir was more los lax code enforcement and study in the eir and referenced significant impacts. the inaccuracies and other problems we found in the eir which we briefed and commented on in the letters and other documents in record were found throughout the eir. today

i would like to focus on one issue though among the many that we found. that is that the eir did not accurately and adequately describe the land and how it would be impacted by the proposed project as required by the initial study as ceqa's requirements. particularly about the inadequate analysis of special use in san francisco for 27 years and how those rules were being applied in this case for the large corporate user live nation at masonic. i heard there is currently issues today about the importance of protecting special use districts. i think the same problems and issues arise at the knob hill special use district. however to be sure i wasn't completely off base and because i'm so old, i contacted some of my friends who have worked in the planning

department for years. one of the people i contacted was bob pass more who you will hear from shortly. bob was the zoning administrator for the city for 34 years, wrote most of the zoning interpretations that we rely on today and he confirmed my views. let's look at the proposed project itself. we have to start with the 1953 stipulation that the masonic center made and the san francisco planning commission code adopted in its resolution that it will be used for the masonic temple. we can't condone use due to lax enforcement because nobody paid attention. over time the masonic was rezoned in the knob hill use districts. the masonic

zone continued to be a non-conforming use. whether it's permitted non-conforming use or unpermitted non-conforming use. today we know it is a non-conforming use. the other issues is that the masonic sits in the zoning distribution and knob hill special use district which doesn't allow for entertainment which is what the masonic is seeking and finally the special use district only allows for special kinds of uses, hotels, restaurants and bars not for private clubs and accessory uses to those three other uses. no where is other entertainment allowed. what did the eir do with the situation? it studied a land use scheme proposed by live nation that avoids the

special use district. under project section 182b. the project sponsor scheme is to use section 182 to use it's non-conforming use to reach into the adjoining district and borrow the conditional use out of that district and bring that use other entertainment long sought into the knob hill that is not permitted and would effectively amend the knob hill zoning amendment. let me say the knob hill is trying to take a different use from a different neighborhood and bring it into the knob hill special use district by a different use not even with the text amendment. this is something the city has not done over the course of me career here at city hall for more than 27 years. such thinking would

create a long stand in special use district and would allow non-conditional use permits to be the exception. if this would become a policy it would apply in all the force of all the districts. japan town, gary blvd and irving street and third street and xelsory. the interpretation dated may 1990 in your packet which says when a non-conforming use changes to another use such must conform to other applique able. let's go to other problems in the eir, the proposed project

of uses in the amount of knob hill and increasing parking and traffic large increases in the number of events and patrons that will attending the events. the knob hill does not permit this type of activity. what else is wrong with the eir? in order to avoid the analysis that i just discussed the need to comply with the special use district, the ir, it doesn't meet the plans of 182. the far that allows 2.51 is exceeded here because the parking garage is not an accessory use as contended by my friend. i say that with great honor. the parking garage is it's own use.

it operates 24/7, 365, it accommodates the clubs, the hotels and accommodates the masonic. next is the issue of whether other entertainment can be lawfully applied at the masonic. i pointed out in the ncd district of course it initially says it cannot. it can only be applied in the first floor and below. mr. vettel points out that it provides an exception to the exception. his exception says it can't bring that use to the second story if there is more than one user. on the first floor we have the masonic and live nation and "avatar". on the first industry we have the masonic, live nation and "avatar". based on all of these errors, the e ir cannot be

quantified. what is expressed in the planning code for 27 years is going to be followed or will it be followed or over turned for one sponsor who is bringing unpermitted use not by following the rules but by using an exception to the rules. chiu president david chiu: thank you mr. wallace. thank you colleagues, any questions to mr. wallace? i have a couple questions to help frame the conversation because obviously as district supervisor i know a little bit about this project given all the appeals over the years. given that we've had a number of appeals and lawsuit, there are a lot of details that are confusing. we are talking about the mornings -- modernization of the masonic center. can you tell the number of the proposed project?

>> 135 patrons per show. 3300 from 3100. president david chiu: that's my understanding. an increase about 4 percent of capacity for individuals. as i read your appeal letter, it didn't from my perspective didn't address the environmental analysis or the adequacy of that or as much as from 2013 was granted. i wanted to ask why didn't you bring a cu appeal if you spent a lot of time in your letter focused on that. >> we didn't file a conditional use appeal. the board is very stringent of getting the board before yourself. the reasons we did file a conditional use appeal. it was